Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mitchell Vs. Trawler Racer, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 16, 1960

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

75 entries 3 linked 72 unlinked
Show
  1. United Pilots Assn. Vs. Halecki US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1959
  2. Union Ins. Co. Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1888
  3. Carlisle Packing Co. Vs. Sandanger US Supreme Court · May 29, 1922
  4. Mitchell v. Trawler
    Search
  5. Racer, Inc. - 362 U.S. 539 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. Trawler
    Search
  6. Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (1960) Mitchell v. Trawler
    Search
  7. a question of maritime law upon which the Courts of Appeals have expressed differing views. Compare Cookingham v. United
    Search
  8. States, 184 F.2d 213 (C.A. 3d Cir.), with Johnson Line v. Maloney
    Search
  9. F.2d 293 (C.A. 9th Cir.), and Poignant v. United
    Search
  10. Cf. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki
    Search
  11. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
    Search
  12. U. S. 613 , or as to the status of the vessel itself. Cf. West v. United
    Search
  13. codes as establishing the limits of a shipowner's liability to a seaman injured in the service of his vessel. Harden v. Gordon
    Search
  14. Page 362 U. S. 544 Reed v. Canfield
    Search
  15. excuse their desertion or misconduct which otherwise would result in a forfeiture of their right to wages. See Dixon v. The
    Search
  16. Rice v. The
    Search
  17. of a shoreside employer to exercise ordinary care to provide his employees with a reasonably safe place to work. Brown v. The
    Search
  18. Page 362 U. S. 545 Halverson v. Nisen
    Search
  19. Tropical Fruit S.S. Co. v. Towle
    Search
  20. John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Erickson
    Search
  21. Osceola opinion also finds arguable support in several subsequent decisions of this Court. Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips
    Search
  22. Plamals v. The
    Search
  23. Pacific S.S. Co. v. Peterson
    Search
  24. as explicitly unrelated to the standard of ordinary care in a personal injury case appears in Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger
    Search
  25. F.2d at 711. In 1944, this Court decided Mahnich v. Southern
    Search
  26. properly attributable to unseaworthiness. See 321 U.S. at 321 U. S. 105 -113. In Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki
    Search
  27. absolute and completely independent of his duty under the Jones Act to exercise reasonable care. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
    Search
  28. Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson
    Search
  29. Rogers v. United
    Search
  30. Boudoin v. Lykes
    Search
  31. Crumady v. The
    Search
  32. respect to an unseaworthy condition which may be only temporary. Of particular relevance here is Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson
    Search
  33. or withstand every imaginable peril of the sea, but a vessel reasonably suitable for her intended service. Boudoin v. Lykes
    Search
  34. the vitality of a seaman's right to maintenance and cure has not diminished through the years. Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor
    Search
  35. Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Jones
    Search
  36. Farrell v. United
    Search
  37. Warren v. United
    Search
  38. pp. 315-332. See also the illuminating discussion in the opinion of then Circuit Judge Harlan in Dixon v. United
    Search
  39. recovery for injured seamen (the La Follette Act of 1915, 38 Stat. 1164, 1185) had been emasculated in Chelentis v. Luckenbach
    Search
  40. I.e., as simply overruling the decision in Plamals v. The
    Search
  41. in a case very similar to this one has been recognized by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Poignant v. United
    Search
  42. it occurred on May 29, 1922, in Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger
    Search
  43. to the distinctions urged by respondent, but regards the questions now presented as foreclosed by Alaska S.S. Co. v. Petterson
    Search
  44. was a snatch-block, standard ships' equipment, supplied pursuant to that permission. Following Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki
    Search
  45. U. S. 85 , and Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
    Search
  46. way of limiting this extraordinary liability, and the significance of a carrier's liability, as such, shrank. See Pope v. Nickerson
    Search
  47. compare In re Missouri S.S. Co., 42 Ch.D. 321 (1889), with Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Phenix
    Search
  48. that the carrier's ability to distribute the risk justified regarding him as an insurer, cf. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki
    Search
  49. Lord Eldon, in Douglas v. Scougall
    Search
  50. arising and allowed to persist through the negligence of responsible servants. See, e.g., Baron Parke in Gibson v. Small
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial